Ampersand at Amptoons, in defense of the extremist versions of ‘identity politics’ Jeff and I have recently discussed and rejected, writes the following:
John at Balloon Juice, discussing identity politics, writes:
Maybe this incident will help people (in particular my friends on the left, but not exclusively) recognize why this brand of politics will lead to nothing but rancor and should end now.
Yes, because what good has identity politics done so far? I mean, aside from ending Jim Crow, bringing voting rights to minorities and to women, creating a nationwide network of rape crisis and battered women’s resources, removing laws against sodomy, vastly increasing Deaf rights, changing homosexuality from a sickness to an orientation, making much of society more accessible to the disabled, wage equality laws, giving married women the right to own property, and a thousand other changes that have helped the disabled, the non-white, the queer and the female, when has identity politics ever done anyone any good?
John’s right – putting every social improvement this country has made in the last century aside, identity politics leads to nothing but rancor.
Pretty clearly there is a difference between using single issues or groups of people suffering similar types of discrimination as an organizing principle to address grievances and the incidents Jeff and I are discussing. What Jeff and I reject are the attempts to use what self-styled adherents to this modern brand of identity politics are attempting to impose, a system in which those within the identity group are to be the sole arbiter of that what is best for all members of the group (regardless of their own decisions) in question and the only ones allowed to speak about issues relating to the group (included within this is the belief that what is best for the group is the notion that individual autonomy is forbidden, and that all blacks must think alike or they are not really black, all gays must be one way or they are not really gay, etc.). This is clearly different from the original notion of identity politics, in which the focus was the “demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition.”
Those who choose to pretend that the broad-based coalition that helped to enact Civil Rights legislation (and other similar acts) is the same exact thing as a group of people who say that whites are forbidden to comment when a black man dresses up another black man in ‘sambo’ outfits are free to hold their opinions, but I don’t have to take them seriously.
aop
From the same source:
“The phrase “identity politics” is also something of a philosophical punching-bag for a variety of critics. Often challenges fail to make sufficiently clear their object of critique, using “identity politics” as a blanket description that invokes a range of tacit political failings.”
ppGaz
The essential rightness of civil rights is similar to the essential rightness of being against torture, whereas the latter thing you describe here is just a control mechanism. Which is a long way of saying, right on.
SomeCallMeTim
who say that whites are forbidden to comment when a black man dresses up another black man in ‘sambo’
This entirely misreads the common reaction. No one “forbid” you or Goldstein from commenting; no one was in a position to do so. People said it was inappropriate because we were really talking about the use of intra-family language. I’m relatively hesitant to criticize the way someone talks to or about his family because it’s his family. This doesn’t strike me as anything but commonplace. I didn’t much like Gillard’s use of the picture, either, but criticisms of it by me would likely be off-mark – I’m not part of that family.
Matt
Honestly, I think you’re just asking for trouble when you start criticizing “identity politics” rather than any specific incident. While you may consider the object of your critique to be of a different breed than the identity politics responsible for the civil rights movement, gay rights, etc, you must realize that for every one person out there actually making such a distinction in their criticism, there’re a dozen who explicitly don’t.
Stormy70
Except Michael Steele is not a member of Gillard’s family, and it is just another way for Gillard to excuse his racist rant. It is not ok in any sense to denigrate a man’s race because you disagree politically with them. “Intra-family talk” is just a bullshit way of silencing someone for not belonging to your group. By this measure, no black person has a right to interfere in any intra-family talk between whites, ever. They have no right to comment on the Presidential Election since it was all in the intra-family.
Sheesh. Gillard is a effing racist jerk, and nothing excuses his jackassary.
Al Maviva
I’m looking forward to firing two of the black attorneys who work for me.
Oh, they do just fine with their work product.
It’s that we have an overrepresentation in this office, and I need to correct it by hiring an Asian American, and preferably somebody with non-hetero sexual preferences. Gotta beef up the diversity.
/s
And before you laugh, keep in mind that the NYC bar is pushing a plan to ensure that all legal teams working on matters for Fortune 500 firms have adequate female, minority, and homosexual representation. Roughly 25 of the top 50 firms in NYC have signed on, and a similar number of Fortune 200 firms have as well. It strikes me as absurd – but then the idea of using identity politics to punish the identity politics of Jim Crow strikes me as absurd too. Chollie Rangel was on CSPAN radio over the weekend. What he said about affirmative action was really informative. He said that America was wrong for a long time, so now we need racial quotas as a form of punishment.
I’ll identify identity politics more clearly: the notion that one’s political beliefs are necessarily determined, or should be determined, by one’s immutable physical characteristics.
DougJ
How come we never heard any of the *good news* about Jim Crow laws?
Steve S
Identity politics was created by Nixon, and turned into an artform by Reagan.
The rancor is by design. The goal is to turn people off from politics, such that the only people left voting are the wacko wingnuts… who conveniently vote for Republicans.
Sometime in 1994 I turned off the TV and tuned out of politics. I woke up in 1998 with the republicans trying to impeach my President.
Never again. You want your identity politics, then I’m coming to the knife fight with a gun.
Shygetz
What family was that? I thought it was the American family. As such, if you’re talking about the African blacks, then I agree. If you’re talking about black Americans, I would love to see your point.
When you believe that your social experience is necessarily determined by your immutable physical characteristics, then it is not illogical to believe that one’s politics should also follow. When you believe that one party ignores or exacerbates the continuing plight of your entire race/gender/etc., then it is not illogical to vent insults at those who would support said party, especially if that support comes from a member of the underpriveleged group and is viewed as being for personal gain. Gillard thought Steele was doing just that–he was embracing a Republican party that ignores the societal unfairness that exists against blacks. Such an action is aggrevated by the fact that Steele is, himself, black. As such, Gillard viewed Steele as betraying the cause of black rights for his own personal gain, and treated him as such. Whether he was right is a matter of opinion, but there is nothing outrageous about Gillard’s position.
And WTF about “those within the identity group are to be the sole arbiter of that what is best for the group.” Who would you suggest is a better arbiter of what is best for the group? Can the French vote in our elections? They might know better than us what is best. Nope–those within the identity group should be the sole arbiters of what is best for that group. They alone have a guaranteed vested interest in the success of the group, as well as the most experience of the consequences of belonging to the group. I would love to see you or Jeff put forward a logical argument to the contrary. I know you didn’t mean this as a “Them blacks just don’t know what’s good for them” argument, but I would like to know what you DID mean.
p.lukasiak
Except Michael Steele is not a member of Gillard’s family, and it is just another way for Gillard to excuse his racist rant.
geez, could you be any more dense?
Gilliard’s critique of Steele is not about Steele’s opinions — its about Steele’s eagerness to have himself pimped by white conservative who don’t give a flying fuck about the black community.
Tim F.
Shygetz,
I think John’s point has more to do with imposed conformity than with patronizing attitudes. The thing that offends John and Jeff isn’t so much that only members of group X can decide what’s good for them, but that no member of group X may deviate from a common message. Steele comes up as an issue precisely because nobody has considered that he may be a wealthy investor with extensive holdings in Haliburton and Exxon. Is he allowed to vote his pocketbook, even though he’s black? Maybe he’s a card-carrying neocon. He’d be crazy, but crazy is legal in this country. That, in a nutshell, is John’s point.
Tim F.
Never mind the recursive use of ‘point.’ And I know that there’s more to what they’re saying than that, but it’s a big part of it and hasn’t been acknowledged yet.
Sojourner
I haven’t paid much attention to this issue so I’m curious as to how much of it is due to an attempt on the part of the Repubs to pander to blacks by choosing a black candidate. Then feigning indignation when the black community comes back and rejects him because he can’t be trusted to govern in the best interests of the black community.
tzs
Well, we had that lunatic Keyes here in Illinois. He got rejected by everybody.
And whenever I see anything about quotas in hiring, immediately I have the reaction: whaddya mean diverse?! You’ve hired 100% lawyers! Let’s get some belly-dancers in there instead!
(Speaking as a proud practitioner of the art…)